Q&A

Answer a question


Do you want to follow this topic? You need to be signed in for this feature
Do you want to save this article to read later? You need to be signed in for this feature


SERPS in 2017 are those people like me who paid into Serps going to be treated the same way as those that have not paid into it?

Trying to establish the fairness in the new 2017 flat rate pension between those that have paid into SERPS and those that have not. Are we going to be treated the same because if so we need to petition the government about this. Some of us have already had the goal posts moved with regards to our age - I was told I would be able to retire at 60 when making provisions for my pension, then the goal post got moved twice, once to 63 and now nearly 65 before I get the state pension. If the government are going to clobber me again with a SERPS unfairness then all I would say to people is don't trust the government EVER, & don't believe any of them.

1
Answers


Do you want to answer this question? You need to be signed in for this feature

Answers




You refer to having to wait until nearly 65. This is a consequence of the Sex Discrimination Act. You should be grateful that you will be able to start your pension before a male of the same age, especially as women live longer than men, on average, and you are likely to receive your pension for about 5 years longer than the equivalent male. It should have been corrected many years ago. As to the unfairness as to people who contributed to SERPS, etc., that will depend on the detail which I haven't heard yet. If there is a deductive item for contracting-out, as at present, then it should be fair. There is another likely unfairness between those who retire before, or after, the expected date of 2017. However, it might well be delayed because there will be another election before then. It could be delayed beyond your expected pension date which I believe would be in 2018. The current pension provisions are the most complicated in Europe and probably in the World. They needed simplifying. The main problem is that the existing scheme is unfunded, so your contributions have already been spent on current and past pensioners. The Conservatives had proposed a funded scheme to start in 1975, but Labour won the election and scrapped that scheme. As a consequence we lost 3 years accrual before their scheme started in 1978 and it was unfunded, causing the huge deficits now. Mike